I ask this because I have one scent that isn't bad, but it has a little too much grapefruit in it. I put it on and I smell like the produce section of the supermarket. So I experimented and added a dab of another light citrusy scent that smelled a little more of lemongrass and a hint of vetiver. The two scents seemed to balance out okay because they were both light citrusy daytime colognes.

Am I committing some kind of fragrance crime?

Does anyone else out there dare try to wear two different scents at the same time?

Some people argue that Tom Ford Private Blends are meant to be layered as well (I don't see it, personally). My general feeling is that, if you need to layer a scent with another one just to make it wearable, then it isn't really a great scent for you in the first place. I've yet to ever smell two fragrances layered together that actually smelled better than the sum of their parts.

Layering and mixing are two different things entirely. I have found you can mix two scents that don't have too much strong synthetics in them, but the results are usually not great. Layering also doesn't usually turn out well, but it's best to try it (if you feel you must) with simple scents that would seem to work well together, such as an amber one and a dry, non-sweet one.

I mixed Bond No 9's Coney Island and Wall Street, and the result is very good. I've heard other say these two mix well, so I tried it. By mix, I mean I took 4 samples (bon bons) of each, and alternated pouring each one in an atomizer.

Do whatever the heck makes you happy. keep them apart, blend them, its your juice. I spray different types on all the time. Scent A on arms and neck, scent B on chest. Its fun to play around with blending. Its just perfume, dont take it too seriously.

Definitely not! Mixing ingredients to create a desirable product is the essence of perfumery. And there is no "Fragrance Penal Code." Notwithstanding, many on this board will offer numerous reasons why you CANNOT layer (check "layering" threads on these boards) without somehow offending perfumers and/or the perfume gods of the universe. I respectfully but strongly disagree with these opinions. I've explored layering many times and have found both successes (some that just "worked" and others that worked better than the individual component parts) and failures. With both my successes and failures, I risked only my fragrances and my resources. Nobody on these boards can tell me (or you) whether you are "wrong" or "committing some kind of fragrance crime" by using your resources how you want. At most, people can make recommendations.

I strongly recommend that you layer if you want to. I also recommend that you try layering "simple with simple" (e.g., a basic citrus with a basic vetiver, as in your own example; or a soliflore tobacco like I Profumi di Firenze's Tobacco with a straight ahead ambergris, such as I Profumi di Firenze's Ambra Grisea) or "simple with complex" (e.g., a simple opoponax like Santa Maria Novella's Opoponax with a more complicated opoponax-based fragrance like Diptyque's Eau Lente) before you try layering "complex with complex."

Jo Malone frags are indeed very simple, and because of that, the new sales tactic is to encourage blending, mixing, layering, to accomplish more complexity and a give a sense of individualization to each customer.

As a Perfumer and Artist in many mediums, From the Artist's perspective, Don't you dare mess with my work, I've labored long and hard to perfect these artworks, and they are "DONE!" You don't add to them and you don't take away from them... One of my artworks is a Media presentation, and someone wanted to shorten it. The reply from my friend was: "You don't crop the Mona Lisa."

My Fragrance "Ere", which took two years to perfect with over 125 trials would fall into this category, I'm afraid... It's DONE and I don't want anyone messing with it. :-) My frags are intentionally very complex, that is a part of my hallmark, but not all other frags are that way.

And because I'm an Artist myself, I try to honor what another artist or composer has labored so hard to accomplish, I characterize this as: "As Intended".

Use it, enjoy it, as intended, and don't futz with it.

But I'm afraid that this sentiment really only encompasses the highest arts. Lower arts, like mass market fragrances that had too many cooks spoiling the pot, too many accountants, and too low a level of high quality ingredients, (If any at all to begin with...), these are seemingly prime targets for "adjustments", as necessary for your own tastes and desires for modifications.

But really, in the end, after you buy my stuff, it's yours to destroy or enjoy as you see fit.

I hear about some folks in the middle east who will buy a bottle of something, and dump the entire bottle on themselves at once, (eek...)

As a Perfumer and Artist in many mediums, From the Artist's perspective, Don't you dare mess with my work, I've labored long and hard to perfect these artworks, and they are "DONE!" You don't add to them and you don't take away from them... One of my artworks is a Media presentation, and someone wanted to shorten it. The reply from my friend was: "You don't crop the Mona Lisa."

My Fragrance "Ere", which took two years to perfect with over 125 trials would fall into this category, I'm afraid... It's DONE and I don't want anyone messing with it. :-) My frags are intentionally very complex, that is a part of my hallmark, but not all other frags are that way.

And because I'm an Artist myself, I try to honor what another artist or composer has labored so hard to accomplish, I characterize this as: "As Intended".

Use it, enjoy it, as intended, and don't futz with it.

But really, in the end, after you buy my stuff, it's yours to destroy or enjoy as you see fit.

Interesting comments. I appreciate both your "Artist's perspective" and apparent acknowledgment that it is the consumer's perspective about your product that may matter most after s/he has dropped coin to obtain it. After all, if your product does not work for the person who bought it, the consumer won't we

I ask this because I have one scent that isn't bad, but it has a little too much grapefruit in it. I put it on and I smell like the produce section of the supermarket. So I experimented and added a dab of another light citrusy scent that smelled a little more of lemongrass and a hint of vetiver. The two scents seemed to balance out okay because they were both light citrusy daytime colognes.

Am I committing some kind of fragrance crime?

Does anyone else out there dare try to wear two different scents at the same time?

Some people argue that Tom Ford Private Blends are meant to be layered as well (I don't see it, personally). My general feeling is that, if you need to layer a scent with another one just to make it wearable, then it isn't really a great scent for you in the first place. I've yet to ever smell two fragrances layered together that actually smelled better than the sum of their parts.

Layering and mixing are two different things entirely. I have found you can mix two scents that don't have too much strong synthetics in them, but the results are usually not great. Layering also doesn't usually turn out well, but it's best to try it (if you feel you must) with simple scents that would seem to work well together, such as an amber one and a dry, non-sweet one.

I mixed Bond No 9's Coney Island and Wall Street, and the result is very good. I've heard other say these two mix well, so I tried it. By mix, I mean I took 4 samples (bon bons) of each, and alternated pouring each one in an atomizer.

Do whatever the heck makes you happy. keep them apart, blend them, its your juice. I spray different types on all the time. Scent A on arms and neck, scent B on chest. Its fun to play around with blending. Its just perfume, dont take it too seriously.

Definitely not! Mixing ingredients to create a desirable product is the essence of perfumery. And there is no "Fragrance Penal Code." Notwithstanding, many on this board will offer numerous reasons why you CANNOT layer (check "layering" threads on these boards) without somehow offending perfumers and/or the perfume gods of the universe. I respectfully but strongly disagree with these opinions. I've explored layering many times and have found both successes (some that just "worked" and others that worked better than the individual component parts) and failures. With both my successes and failures, I risked only my fragrances and my resources. Nobody on these boards can tell me (or you) whether you are "wrong" or "committing some kind of fragrance crime" by using your resources how you want. At most, people can make recommendations.

I strongly recommend that you layer if you want to. I also recommend that you try layering "simple with simple" (e.g., a basic citrus with a basic vetiver, as in your own example; or a soliflore tobacco like I Profumi di Firenze's Tobacco with a straight ahead ambergris, such as I Profumi di Firenze's Ambra Grisea) or "simple with complex" (e.g., a simple opoponax like Santa Maria Novella's Opoponax with a more complicated opoponax-based fragrance like Diptyque's Eau Lente) before you try layering "complex with complex."

Jo Malone frags are indeed very simple, and because of that, the new sales tactic is to encourage blending, mixing, layering, to accomplish more complexity and a give a sense of individualization to each customer.

As a Perfumer and Artist in many mediums, From the Artist's perspective, Don't you dare mess with my work, I've labored long and hard to perfect these artworks, and they are "DONE!" You don't add to them and you don't take away from them... One of my artworks is a Media presentation, and someone wanted to shorten it. The reply from my friend was: "You don't crop the Mona Lisa."

My Fragrance "Ere", which took two years to perfect with over 125 trials would fall into this category, I'm afraid... It's DONE and I don't want anyone messing with it. :-) My frags are intentionally very complex, that is a part of my hallmark, but not all other frags are that way.

And because I'm an Artist myself, I try to honor what another artist or composer has labored so hard to accomplish, I characterize this as: "As Intended".

Use it, enjoy it, as intended, and don't futz with it.

But I'm afraid that this sentiment really only encompasses the highest arts. Lower arts, like mass market fragrances that had too many cooks spoiling the pot, too many accountants, and too low a level of high quality ingredients, (If any at all to begin with...), these are seemingly prime targets for "adjustments", as necessary for your own tastes and desires for modifications.

But really, in the end, after you buy my stuff, it's yours to destroy or enjoy as you see fit.

I hear about some folks in the middle east who will buy a bottle of something, and dump the entire bottle on themselves at once, (eek...)

As a Perfumer and Artist in many mediums, From the Artist's perspective, Don't you dare mess with my work, I've labored long and hard to perfect these artworks, and they are "DONE!" You don't add to them and you don't take away from them... One of my artworks is a Media presentation, and someone wanted to shorten it. The reply from my friend was: "You don't crop the Mona Lisa."

My Fragrance "Ere", which took two years to perfect with over 125 trials would fall into this category, I'm afraid... It's DONE and I don't want anyone messing with it. :-) My frags are intentionally very complex, that is a part of my hallmark, but not all other frags are that way.

And because I'm an Artist myself, I try to honor what another artist or composer has labored so hard to accomplish, I characterize this as: "As Intended".

Use it, enjoy it, as intended, and don't futz with it.

But really, in the end, after you buy my stuff, it's yours to destroy or enjoy as you see fit.

Interesting comments. I appreciate both your "Artist's perspective" and apparent acknowledgment that it is the consumer's perspective about your product that may matter most after s/he has dropped coin to obtain it. After all, if your product does not work for the person who bought it, the consumer won't we